get_orderbook

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The verb '조회' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose any behavioral details such as return structure, pagination, or data depth. It is adequate for a simple lookup but adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable summary of the response content (bid/ask quotes and quantities). However, it does not specify the order book depth or response structure, which would be helpful but not critical given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the 'symbol' parameter with an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves bid/ask quotes and quantities for a symbol, using the specific verb '조회합니다'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_stochastic or get_candles, which serve different data purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention situations where get_orderbook is preferred over get_prices or other market data tools, and there are no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.